I explained what 320 was about. Sorry you do not understand it, and cannot see that you are projecting upon that portion of code things which are not there.
I already explained what is not there.
Try to find what it is I was talking about and interact with that, rather than attempt to tell me that I do not understand, and then give me "any true scotsman" fallacy while talking about capacity of brain matter.
The codes do stipulate that Cruz was a citizen at birth, there being no mention of persons born in the circumstances that he was, being in some other way "naturalized".
We've been through this before, you and I.
And what came to light but that yourself (and others too who invented the line of argument you have been presenting) in order to make it work had to rely upon argument arising from reliance upon language within laws regarding citizenship AND immigration from decades (if not more than a full century) prior to those laws having been greatly altered.
You simply cannot continue to import language from codification of laws ---which have been subjected to change--- as if those laws still read the same way.
Or else -- we may as well go back all the way to the language in the original 1790 code.
The last time I mentioned that on another thread -- you ran away.
“I explained what 320 was about.”
No, you did not, because your comments about it are nothing but false hogwash demonstrating your ignorance about it.
“Sorry you do not understand it, and cannot see that you are projecting upon that portion of code things which are not there.”
You are just inventing a lot of false allegations and false statements with absolutely no evidence to back it up in the form of the actual language of the law. I invited you to quote the exact words of the law which grant natural born citizenship to such a child, and you never have. You never will, because it does not exist. You are doing nothing more than spouting a lot of nonsensical phrases and sentences purporting to say something that does not exist in quotable law and are self contradicting. You refuse to face up to the fact such a child cannot be a natural born citizen while the Sections 301 and 320 of the Immigration and Naturalization of 1952 determine whether or not the child is to acquire U.S. citizenship. If the child were natural born, the laws granting U.S. citizenship to the child would be unnecessary.
“I already explained what is not there.”
No, you did not, because your statements about that are no more than fantasy fairy tale inventions with no basis in quotable law.
“Try to find what it is I was talking about and interact with that, rather than attempt to tell me that I do not understand, and then give me “any true scotsman” fallacy while talking about capacity of brain matter.”
Then explain to the audience why it was necessary for Congress to enact a law to make a child born abroad with one alien father and one U.S. citizen mother a U.S. citizen if as you claim it to be the child was already a natural born citizen of the U.S. It stands to reason no such law would have been written, much less enacted, if the child were born with natural born citizenship.
“The codes do stipulate that Cruz was a citizen at birth, there being no mention of persons born in the circumstances that he was, being in some other way ‘naturalized’.”
That is what you keep saying over and over again in blatant contradiction to the quoted statutory laws, such as the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Acts; the case law such as United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) whether or not the language was dicta does not invalidate its accuracy; Scott v. Sanford (1856) which was certainly not dicta; and so many other numerous legal citations. You are not debating or evidencing your claims. You are instead just talking around the subject with a lot of nonsensical false statements.
“We’ve been through this before, you and I.”
Not really, because you refuse to face up to the legal quotations that flatly refute your comments. When the critical quotation from United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) is quoted and cited for you, you just wave your hand in the air and try to dismiss it as being irrelevant with the comment it is no more than dicta. Unfortunately for your argument it is dicta acknowledging the prior U.S. Supreme Court case and it conforms in other cases such as Scott v. Sanford in which the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly denied U.S. citizenship for the children of U.S. citizens born abroad. It does you no good to argue in response that the law has changed, because there never has been a U.S. statute granting natural born citizenship.
“And what came to light but that yourself (and others too who invented the line of argument you have been presenting) in order to make it work had to rely upon argument arising from reliance upon language within laws regarding citizenship AND immigration from decades (if not more than a full century) prior to those laws having been greatly altered.”
You keep trying the false tactic of portraying my evidence and argument as my own invention and/or the invention of others, when in fact these are the arguments of the legal authorities being reported in quotations from the sources, paraphrases from the sources, and reasonably accurate explanations of those sources. For example, the following legal definitions established the fact that naturalization laws are statutory laws, statutory laws are Positive Law, Positive Law and therefore statutory naturalization laws are in contradistinction to Natural Law, and natural born citizens are in contradistinction to Positive lw and therefore in contradistinction to naturalization laws and naturalized citizens. See:
Bouvier’s A Law Dictionary, STATUTE. A law established by the act of the legislative power. An act of the legislature. The written will of the legislature, solemnly expressed according to the forms necessary to constitute it the law of the state.
This word is used to designate the written law in contradistinction to the unwritten law. . . .
Bouvier’s A Law Dictionary, POSITIVE LAW. Law actually ordained or established, under human sanctions, as distinguished from the law of nature or natural law, which comprises those considerations of justice, right and universal expediency that are announced by the voice of reason or of revelation. Municipal law is chiefly, if not essentially, positive; while the law of nations has been deemed by many of the earlier writers as merely an application of the law of nations.
Bouvier’s A Law Dictionary, NATURAL LAW. The law of nature. The divine will, or the dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there is in any act, according to its suitableness to a reasonable nature. Sometimes used of the law of humans reason, in contradistinction to the revealed law, and sometimes of both, in contradistinction to positive law.
They are independent of any artificial connections, and differ from mere presumptions of law in this essential respect, that the latter depend on and are a branch of the particular system of jurisprudence to which they belong; but mere natural presumptions are derived wholly by means of the common experience of mankind, without the aid or control of any particular rule of law, but simply from the course of nature and the habits of society. These presumptions fall within the exclusive province of the jury, who are to pass upon the facts. 3 Bouvier, Inst. n. 3064; Greenleaf, Ev. Sec. 44.
“You simply cannot continue to import language from codification of laws -—which have been subjected to change-— as if those laws still read the same way.”
In fact I did no such ting, often noting for readers and you that the laws have been changed over time, which is why I made such a point of quoting the 1952 statutory law applicable to Ted Cruz when he was born on 22 December 1970. I also made a point of researching further to make sure the quoted sections were not repealed and retroactively applied to the date of Ted Cruz’s birth.
“Or else — we may as well go back all the way to the language in the original 1790 code.”
I did exactly that, tracing the evolution of the applicable laws all the way back to the Declaration of Independence on 2-4 July 1776, and then further on back to Rome, Hammurabi’s Code and the Bible. The Naturalization Act of 1790 explicitly indicated the child born abroad with a U.S. citizen acquired U.S. citizenship by naturalization, just as they now do in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
“The last time I mentioned that on another thread — you ran away.”
No, there you go again with the self congratulatory fantasies. First, I was busy working and driving across the state. My posts stop while I’m driving a vehicle. Secondly, when I was able to post again I stopped posting for awhile after 5 of 6 postings of the music were censored/deleted by the moderator. It is not uncommon for posts on this topic to be censored from time to time, so don’t expect these discussions to go forward unmolested and without interruption.
Finally, naturalization laws, meaning legislative acts, make artificial and unnatural citizens, and only natural law bestows natural born citizenship; because any citizenship granted by a legislative act is an unnatural citizenship by the definitions of the law dictionaries, customary law and case law as demonstrated by the above quotations and citations.
And you lose the argument right there. If you need a code (law/statute) to make you a citizen you aren't a natural born citizen.